(b) Any land, building or structure where five three or more cats and/or dogs six months of age or older are boarded, housed or bred for commercial purposes shall be considered a kennel and shall only be permitted in the zoning districts where such uses are allowed.

(c) (2) No large animals shall be permitted on lots less than two full acres in size. On lots of two to ten acres the raising and keeping of large animals, including but not limited to horses, cows, pigs, or bison shall be limited to one such animal for the first two acres, and one additional animal for each full acre over two. On lots equal to or exceeding ten acres, no such limitations shall apply.

Bold: New Text

Strikethrough: Deleted Text

Openlander noticed that Bison were added; he wanted to know if it is necessary to be more specific with the animals. Maahs feels that this language is useful to give the casual readers an example.

Jennie Branscum, 14940 Francis Rd, has 2.8 acres zoned AP and recently found out that they are in violation of the ordinance with the amount of horses they have. Branscum feels that her property may fall under The Michigan Right to Farm Act stating that if a parcel is zoned AG, local government can not limit you on how many animals you can have.

Polverento is currently trying to determine if the keeping of the horses meets an agriculture commodity which would make them eligible to basically use that act in order to trump the Zoning Ordinance. Branscum is a certified therapy riding instructor and also gives riding lessons. It is her plan to put up a riding arena and continue to give lessons out of her home but only if she is allowed to have more than one horse. She mentioned that her husband and son were also involved in roping competitions throughout the year.

Turcotte asked her how many horses she has; she responded that she has three (3). Turcotte explained that she only has enough acreage according to the Ordinance to have one (1) horse and feels that this would be a case she may wish to take up with the Zoning Board of Appeals asking for a dimensional variance.

Polverento explained that the resident who complained about Branscum’s situation also contacted animal control and animal control assured Polverento that the horses are well cared for and well taken care of. Branscum explained that the reason they do not have a shelter is because they did not know what type of structure they could put up and were exploring their options. Branscum also explained why she does not have a large pasture for her horses. The reason being that without pasturing them she can better control their diet; this is a common practice among horse owners.

Overton explained that acreage has to be cut and dry in the Ordinance to be able to enforce it. Overton does not feel that they should look at changing the Ordinance since Branscum has the option of using the Right to Farm Act or asking for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Maahs asked Branscum if she has checked with surrounding neighbors about purchasing some property from one of them.

Zay asked Branscum if she takes her horses out for exercise or if they spend the majority of their time in the small fenced-in area she has for them. Branscum responded that they go to local arenas and ride often and occasionally she rides on Stoll Road.

Openlander asked Branscum what her method for handling the disposal of manure was. Branscum explained that they have a dumpster on the property that she puts the manure in weekly for disposal. She has cleared this process with Granger and was told as long as the manure content is not more than 50% of the contents in the dumpster; Granger will dispose of the manure.

Polverento explained that the following are proposed changes to the zoning ordinance relative to portable storage containers, as presented in the public hearing notice.

Strikethrough: Deleted Text

Overton feels that PODS are a great idea but it is cheaper to keep it on your property rather than send it to their facility for storage. This ordinance is trying to prevent the storage of PODS on personal property.

A. Case #07-16 TXT, Watertown Charter Township, proposed zoning amendments to the Watertown Charter Township Zoning Ordinance: Section 28-570 (Keeping of Animals), Section 28-566 (Temporary Buildings and Structures)

Zay feels that Branscum's case should be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Zay feels that pigs should not be included in the large animal section because pigs are small and several could be kept on 2 acres, she feels that is too restrictive. She also feels that no limitation of large animals on parcels larger then 10 acres could be a problem. Openlander feels that there has to be a limit somewhere.

Maahs feels enforcement of an ordinance of this nature is going to be the result of a resident complaining.

Zay is concerned about having a vindictive neighbor. Maahs explains that they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Overton feels that there has to be codification with measurable limits for enforcement. There is always the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance based on the evidence presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This verbage is common among many townships and basically all that is being done is making the ordinance easier to understand. There has been no change to the amount of animals allowed.

Zay asked about the stipulations on chickens. Zay is still concerned about pigs being included in with large animal limitations and is also still concerned with the fact that there is no limit on large animals on parcels over 10 acres.

Overton recommends sending the keeping of animals issue to the Ordinance Review Committee. Maahs feels that Zay’s concerns are worthwhile for further discussion. Turcotte is in support of having the Ordinance Review Committee clarify animals according to their size etc.

The zoning ordinance also requires that the Planning Commission consider the following when deliberating on amendments:

What, if any, identifiable conditions related to the application have changed that justify the proposed amendment?
The Planning Commission felt that this amendment served to clarify the zoning ordinance and bring it up to date with state law.
What, if any, error was made in the original ordinance that justifies the proposed amendment?
The Planning Commission felt that there was a conflict within the ordinance where kennels were referenced that required that change, and also that a commercial kennel definition was missing. The lot size requirement changes were clarified.
What are the precedents and the possible effects of such precedent that might result from the approval or denial of the amendment?
The Planning Commission felt that this amendment did not set any precedent which may have a negative effect. In addition, by amending the number of animals that constitutes a kennel, it makes those sections of the ordinance much more enforceable.
What is the impact of the amendment on the ability of the Township and other governmental agencies to provide adequate services and facilities and/or other programs that might reasonable be required in the future if the proposed amendment is adopted?
The Planning Commission felt that this was not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Does the petitioned district change adversely affect environmental conditions, or the value of the surrounding property?
The Planning Commission felt that this was not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Does the petitioned district change generally comply with the adopted Watertown Charter Township Comprehensive Development Plan?
The Planning Commission felt that this was not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Is the property in question able to be put to a reasonable economic use in the district as it is presently zoned?
The Planning Commission felt that this was not applicable to the proposed amendments.

MOTION by OVERTON and seconded by LANDES that the Watertown Charter Township Planning Commission recommend to the Township Board of Trustees to approve the zoning amendments to sections 28-7 and 28-570 described in Case #07-16 TXT, for the following reasons and findings of fact:

1.) The zoning amendments are necessary to provide clarification and improvement to the existing Watertown Charter Township Zoning Ordinance.
2.) The zoning amendments address areas of the Zoning Ordinance where existing language does not adequately cover current zoning issues.

Polverento explained that attached is a revised draft copy of the 2007 Annual Report. As suggested at the last meeting, a new section has been added which relates Planning Commission accomplishments directly to the Comprehensive Development Plan. Polverento pulled out some specific goals and objectives and noted progress on them.

Polverento explained that the Board of Trustees addressed the codification issue at its November meeting. Polverento, the township manager, and the clerk are working to submit all the information necessary to the township attorney to move forward on this. The attorney will contact the company that did the codification with the issues, and will advise us on how to progress.

The township manager has also asked staff to go through the other ordinances as well to determine if there were mistakes made in those.